thoughts of where you want to go with it?” My response was “I clearly want to go with a group of CNLs” and I continued by summarising the objectives of Phase One and outlining how Phase Two of the research should precede. This outline, as the following quotation shows, reminded the group of what had been discussed at the first group meeting:
because remember at that first meeting about action research about how it is really a participatory process and part one was going to be this which I did and part two was going to be us so my responsibilities to the group was to present this and then as part of the participation action research we all make a decision what we are going to do with it.
Several participants suggested that rather than preserving all 24 themes, the group concentrate on a small number. Another participant however was firm in her response that she did not want to restrict the number of themes. Finally, the discussion reached a point of agreement-an action about the themes. One of the participants, who had not up till this point contributed, said:
I think it’s important to identify you …. are talking about the role of the Clinical Nurse Leader and you want to identify how big the role is and how complex the role is. And I think once you start to clump things together it may not come across like that, you might not be able portray what is the hugeness of the role and the
complexity but it maybe better to stick with all the themes you have identified.
The group all agreed to preserve the themes in their entirety, as they considered they portrayed how large and complex the role of Clinical Nurse Leader was. Following this consensus, the discussion centred on what the group or individual’s responsibility would be in researching and actioning the themes. The timelines of research were discussed alongside whether the themes should be discussed in pairs. At times the discussion diverged then converged back to how to analyse the themes.
Some of the group then hesitated as to the way forward and sought out clarification of the action research process. One participant questioned the action research method, her ability to understand it and how she was struggling with it. Two other participants shared their